The Dynamic Trio: Spin-ins - Profits - Impact

Fortune 500 corporations and for-profit organizations generally have the image that they function for the sake of only making money. Social ventures, non-profits, and charity organizations are pegged as the “do-gooders” who never make profits and care about making an impact on the world. 

Contrary to popular belief, non-profits makes lots of profits. 

Let that soak in for a second. 

An organization is an organization, regardless of its legal tax designation. It takes money to run organizations, to keep the lights on with people working inside. You cannot do that if you don't have money. 

There is no harm in making money and doing good for the world, is there?  

Collectively, the poorest populations spend over $5 trillion dollars a year paying up to 100 times more for basic accesses and resources than middle and upper class communities (1). 

The poor still function in society and purchase goods and services to do so. Social ventures and more recently, Fortune 500 corporations, are paving the way for competition to exist for the poor community to benefit. The more companies offering goods and services will enhance infrastructure development and drive down costs. The concept of “spin-in” is a practice where large corporations are doing “spin offs” of smaller companies that can enhance or supplement their business practices (2). This concept is being done both domestically and internally, depending on the needs of an organization. 

Coca-Cola, an $80 billion corporation, recognized around the world. The drink can be found in every corner of the developing world. They are also the largest employer in Africa. Fair to say, they make plenty of profit while investing in regions by location regional supply chain structures. The beverages are sold primarily in kiosks around villages. In 2013, Coca-Cola partnered with solar power venture in Kenya, One Degree Solar. Since the Coke kiosks are primarily in remote villages with little to no access to power, the solar power kits were the ideal solution. Coke would market and sell the kits to kiosk owners at $80 and provide them with safe and reliable power. While also increasing sales (3). 

Ikea, the $12 billion Swedish furniture retail company, created a venture called Better Shelter. An organization focused on designing safe and sustainable shelters at a low price for refugees around the world.  In mass production the shelters cost less than $1,000 and feature solar powered, rapid assembly, locked doors, windows, UV light, structural strength, insulation, and proper ventilation to ensure safety from inclement weather (4).

In both instances, these large companies are not only turning a profit but also making an impact on developing nations and the poor consumers. Can one fairly negate the value of a social venture because it makes money? Are large corporations less welcomed in providing resources for developing nations? 

(1) http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682004/how-misinformed-ideas-about-profit-are-holding-back-the-worlds-poor

(2) http://fortune.com/2015/04/26/startups-inside-giant-companies/

(3) http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682126/why-coke-is-bringing-solar-power-to-rural-kenya

(4) http://inhabitat.com/ikeas-solar-powered-flat-pack-refugee-shelters-offer-easily-deployable-emergency-housing/ikea-refugee-shelter2/